Menston and Guiseley Practice

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We looked for evidence people were protected from avoidable harm. At our last assessment, we rated this key question as good. At this assessment, the rating remains the same.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safeguarding during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Involving people to manage risks during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Overall, the practice detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. Equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The main and branch sites operated by the practice were kept in a good structural condition. The practice had arrangements in place to ensure the premises were secure and well maintained. Following a previous inspection undertaken in 2019, we informed the practice that they should review security in relation to vaccine refrigerators, prescriptions and other medicines, as well as put in procedures for checking medicines were in date. During this assessment we saw that these issues had been actioned.

Staff undertook checks, assessments, and audits to ensure they had identified and addressed health and safety risks. For example, we saw that control measures such as fire alarm tests and routine evacuation drills had been undertaken in line with recognised fire safety requirements. However, we saw that there was no specific risk assessment for the safe operation of the stairlift, which was located in the main Guiseley site. After being informed of this we saw that the practice had taken immediate action to rectify this issue. The day after our visit the practice had undertaken and put in place a risk assessment which covered the safe use of the stairlift.

A business continuity plan was in place, this was regularly reviewed and outlined how the service should continue to operate in the event of a disruption.

The practice made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The service employed a range of clinical and non-clinical roles, which included GPs, advanced clinical practitioners, nurses, and other health and care staff. We found staff operated within their agreed areas of competence and were generally up to date with mandatory training. There were some minor gaps in training which we raised with the practice, and were told that these instances would be followed up. Effective induction support was in place for new staff including GP registrars.

We saw that the service had clinical supervision processes in place to support identified staff members such as non-medical prescribers. For example, clinical debriefing sessions were undertaken, and complex clinical cases could be discussed at regular meetings. The service followed safe recruitment procedures when employing staff, which was in line with national legislation. This included identity checks, reviews of qualifications, obtaining of professional references and a criminal records check. Checks on staff immunisations and vaccinations showed that the practice did not have full assurance of staff status in this area, but we saw that work was ongoing in this area. The practice used a digital management platform to support human resources, and training compliance. This tool was also used to manage other areas of activity such as policy storage and review.

The practice assessed and managed the risk of infection in an effective manner. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The practice had cleaning schedules and records in place, which outlined how staff and contractors should clean the building and its equipment. The practice demonstrated how these were monitored for completion to maintain oversight of cleaning arrangements. During our onsite visits to the main and branch sites we saw that the premises and equipment were maintained in a clean and hygienic condition. The practice had appointed a lead staff member who managed infection prevention and control, and who conducted regular checks and audits to ensure compliance. When identified, the practice took action to mitigate and rectify any identified risks and concerns. For example, we saw that an audit undertaken in May 2025 had identified issues related to the standard of cleaning. This had been raised with the cleaning company. When we assessed training records, we saw that mandatory infection prevention and control training had been undertaken by staff.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.